Biking the Boston 'Burbs (Trails, MDC, & Towns beyond Hubway area)

The BFRT is really pretty. (Unlike the MCRT through Weston and Wayland, which is marred by the power line.) I have an insane plan of one day taking the Downeaster to Exeter and riding the Rockingham and Salem rail trails 45 miles to Lawrence, then taking the commuter rail back.
And the Franconia Notch path is surprisingly hairy as bike paths go, but of course it's not actually a rail trail. Last summer I rode it from the Tramway to the Basin as part of a traverse hike over Cannon Mountain, up the Basin-Cascades (gorgeous!) and Hi-Cannon trails and down the Kinsman Ridge Trail.
 
MassDOT just announced the Massachusetts Priority Trails Network (map), which covers mostly familiar ground for rail trail nerds like me, but includes some genuine surprises. In particular, the highlighted "priority trails" include a) a connection between the northern and southern segments of the Assabet River Rail Trail, b) an "Assabet-Freeman Connector" trail alongside the Fitchburg Line between the ARRT and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, and c) an extension of the Reformatory Branch Trail all the way to connect with the BFRT, along the original ROW. I hadn't been aware any of these were even a twinkle in MassDOT's institutional eye, and the Reformatory Branch extension in particular looks like it hasn't exactly been thought through; it's depicted as going straight through a housing development that covers the ROW, off Barrett's Mill Road. (That would probably have to cross to the south side of the river and roughly parallel it down past the prison, then cross back over to hit the BFRT.)
But if those three (and the Mass. Central Rail Trail to Hudson) actually get built, it would make possible a fantastic loop ride from Alewife, out the MCRT, up the ARRT to South Acton, the Assabet-Freeman Connector over to West Concord and all the way back in on the Reformatory Branch Trail and the Minuteman Bikeway.
 
Growing up, I had a friend who lived on Lee Drive in Concord. I remember stumbling onto the vestigial graded ROW in the woods near their house. It was a weird flat spot in the woods down by the riverbank, which I assume is still there.

The folks in the vicinity of Nashawtuc Road will throw a fit that will make everyone think the British are coming again, and they have the money to pay for the consultants.

Personally, I would be happy if the Commonwealth would take it into their own hands to upgrade the Reformatory Branch, instead of leaving it to Bedford.
 
MassDOT just announced the Massachusetts Priority Trails Network (map), which covers mostly familiar ground for rail trail nerds like me, but includes some genuine surprises. In particular, the highlighted "priority trails" include a) a connection between the northern and southern segments of the Assabet River Rail Trail, b) an "Assabet-Freeman Connector" trail alongside the Fitchburg Line between the ARRT and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, and c) an extension of the Reformatory Branch Trail all the way to connect with the BFRT, along the original ROW. I hadn't been aware any of these were even a twinkle in MassDOT's institutional eye, and the Reformatory Branch extension in particular looks like it hasn't exactly been thought through; it's depicted as going straight through a housing development that covers the ROW, off Barrett's Mill Road. (That would probably have to cross to the south side of the river and roughly parallel it down past the prison, then cross back over to hit the BFRT.)
But if those three (and the Mass. Central Rail Trail to Hudson) actually get built, it would make possible a fantastic loop ride from Alewife, out the MCRT, up the ARRT to South Acton, the Assabet-Freeman Connector over to West Concord and all the way back in on the Reformatory Branch Trail and the Minuteman Bikeway.

Been very excited to see that Priority Trail Network - it really does now feel like MassTrails is being more proactive from a program standpoint. SB Mass had a nice piece out last week on MCRT and BFRT construction progress - it gave me a bit of hope especially now that the Somerville Community Path is open.
 
MassDOT just announced the Massachusetts Priority Trails Network (map), which covers mostly familiar ground for rail trail nerds like me, but includes some genuine surprises. In particular, the highlighted "priority trails" include a) a connection between the northern and southern segments of the Assabet River Rail Trail, b) an "Assabet-Freeman Connector" trail alongside the Fitchburg Line between the ARRT and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, and c) an extension of the Reformatory Branch Trail all the way to connect with the BFRT, along the original ROW.

Amazing - those would be a dream come true. Very curious:
1) What is the actual assessed likelihood of something happening just b/c it's in the Priority Trails Network?
2) What can be done to help realize it?
 
Amazing - those would be a dream come true. Very curious:
1) What is the actual assessed likelihood of something happening just b/c it's in the Priority Trails Network?
2) What can be done to help realize it?

I think there's a reasonable chance of an "Assabet-Freeman connector" assuming the MBTA plays ball. The trail is already more or less there for most of the route.

The connection between the Reformatory Branch and the BFRT will never happen. Concord recently freaked out about even the idea of studying paving the Reformatory branch where it exists today, and a resolution was passed at Town Meeting that more or less said "no paving or cutting trees, ever." Adding to that, extending the trail along the historic rail line to the BFRT would require replacing the long-gone bridge at Egg Rock which is complicated by the Sudbury being a Wild and Scenic River and that area having a lot of Native American significance, and then the trail would need to wend around one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the state--one in which several house lots have more or less incorporated the rail ROW. It's a shame, especially given the incredible success of the BFRT in West Concord, but Concord north of Route 2 remains very hostile to shared use, inter-town trails.
 
I think there's a reasonable chance of an "Assabet-Freeman connector" assuming the MBTA plays ball. The trail is already more or less there for most of the route.

The connection between the Reformatory Branch and the BFRT will never happen. Concord recently freaked out about even the idea of studying paving the Reformatory branch where it exists today, and a resolution was passed at Town Meeting that more or less said "no paving or cutting trees, ever." Adding to that, extending the trail along the historic rail line to the BFRT would require replacing the long-gone bridge at Egg Rock which is complicated by the Sudbury being a Wild and Scenic River and that area having a lot of Native American significance, and then the trail would need to wend around one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the state--one in which several house lots have more or less incorporated the rail ROW. It's a shame, especially given the incredible success of the BFRT in West Concord, but Concord north of Route 2 remains very hostile to shared use, inter-town trails.

I’m a frequent rider of the Reformatory Branch Trail. Are you?

I strongly disagree with your assessment.

It would be a step in the wrong direction to pave the Reformatory. I say that as a person who bicycles as his primary mode of transportation and has fought tooth and nail for every bike infrastructure project in my neighborhood. Multi-use trails are great. Car-centric infrastructure is not. Nature is great! When you destroy nature in the name of “improving” a multi-use trail, while leaving car-centric infrastructure preserved, you don’t get to claim that those who oppose you are simply just foolish anti-bike NIMBYs.

Listen to those with different opinions than you. They might surprise you.

EDITED: I accidentally misnamed the trail. Whoops!
 
Last edited:
I’m a frequent rider of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. Are you?

I strongly disagree with your assessment.

It would be a step in the wrong direction to pave the Bruce Freeman. I say that as a person who bicycles as his primary mode of transportation and has fought tooth and nail for every bike infrastructure project in my neighborhood. Multi-use trails are great. Car-centric infrastructure is not. Nature is great! When you destroy nature in the name of “improving” a multi-use trail, while leaving car-centric infrastructure preserved, you don’t get to claim that those who oppose you are simply just foolish anti-bike NIMBYs.

Listen to those with different opinions than you. They might surprise you.
Sorry, can you clarify the constraints here? Are you against paving the trail if it doesn't include removing a road/car lots etc? Why is "improve" in quotation marks? Would this not make the path better for pedestrians and bikes? I'm unfamiliar with these bike paths entirely, but the discussion interested me as an urban cyclist.
 
I'm surprised that a "frequent rider" of the Bruce Freeman doesn't know it's already paved. Assuming you're talking about the Reformatory Branch, I took a bad dive due to the roots and mud on that trail - it's much less useful for actual transportation as long as it's a narrow strip of dirt.
 
I'm surprised that a "frequent rider" of the Bruce Freeman doesn't know it's already paved. Assuming you're talking about the Reformatory Branch, I took a bad dive due to the roots and mud on that trail - it's much less useful for actual transportation as long as it's a narrow strip of dirt.

Fuck I meant Reformatory Branch Trail, not Bruce Freeman. D’oh! Brain fart while typing. I’ll edit.

Paving the Reformatory Branch Trail has been hotly contested and was voted down, something I am in agreement with.

As for the issues you’ve cited: gravel riding in nature is a different beast than riding a paved multi-use trail. When I trip on a root on a hiking trail, I don’t start advocating for cutting down that tree and paving the path so that I don’t trip in the future. Rather, I recognize that keeping nature wild has value. Providing an accessible paved multi-use trail also has value. In a perfect world, we don’t have to argue over scraps while the lion’s share of space is devoted to automobiles. In a perfect world, space is reallocated from automobiles for a paved multi-use trail. For example, I’d love to see Route 2 go on a massive road diet with half of the space reallocated to a paved multi-use trail, but we know that won’t happen.

In the meantime, I’m happy to see that Bedford voted against that plan, but there are aspects of that plan I very much support, which I’ll list below:
  • Extension of the bikeway along Railroad Avenue:
    • A raised shared-use path along the south side of Railroad Avenue that would maintain crossing access for abutting businesses and residents.
    • A new five foot sidewalk on the north side of the road.
    • Repaving with new striping.
    • A new closed drainage system to decrease flooding.
  • New 11-space permeable pavement parking lot where Railroad Avenue and the Reformatory Branch Trail meet:
    • New landscaping features, benches, bicycle racks, signage, etc.
  • Ramp from the path to the end of Evans Avenue for access to the trail.
  • A non-motorized crossing at the end of Turf Meadow Rd for access to and across the trail.
  • Seperate the bikeway from the Water Department's access driveway east of Hartwell Rd:
    • Driveway and path separated by a vegetated buffer with new tree plantings.
  • Improvements to the Hartwell Rd crossing:
    • Accessible crossing with flashing pedestrian signal to warn motorists of users crossing the road is proposed. This would be an improvement and I'm on board with that.
      • Personally, in a perfect world, I'd rather sever the automobile connection and have Hartwell Rd dead-end on either side of the path with a non-motorized crossing connecting across the path.
  • New 15-space permeable pavement parking lot at the end of Lavender Lane:
    • Landscaped to provide screening for the nearby homes.
    • Benches, signange, bicycle racks, etc.
    • Non-motorized crossing connection to the adjoining conservation land trail network.
  • New 15-space permeable pavement parking lot off of Concord Rd:
    • Landscaping, water fountain, picnic table, bicycle racks, signage, etc.
  • Underpass under Concord Rd:
    • 10 ft tall by 18ft wide underpass.
    • Accessible ramp connection.
    • New sidewalk to Bonnievale Drive

Those are actual upgrades that improve access without destroying the natural, gravel/dirt riding that exists.

For urbanites or those without much of an inclination to pursue gravel/dirt riding, I liken it to the unpaved walking trails in Franklin Park or the Arboretum. Paving them may make it less likely that you’ll trip, but the cost of destroying the experience far outweighs the benefit, for those who seek that out. There are paved walkways everywhere. The problem here that we agree on is the woefully inadequate amount of space devoted to paved, car-free, transportation. Where we are clearly not seeing eye to eye is that I strongly disagree with re-appropriating it from on the very few gravel/dirt riding trails left in the area.
 
Last edited:
Rt2 is completely useless for a multi-use trail for elevation reasons alone. Because of the connection to the Minuteman, the reformatory RoW could be very useful for non-car transportation. I’m not making some categorical statement that we should pave every pathway, but this one is unusually valuable
 
Rt2 is completely useless for a multi-use trail for elevation reasons alone. Because of the connection to the Minuteman, the reformatory RoW could be very useful for non-car transportation. I’m not making some categorical statement that we should pave every pathway, but this one is unusually valuable

That may be so, and it may be worthwhile to pave due to the micromobility win, but it’s still a loss for preservation and recreation. One can be very strongly in favor of car-free transportation and lament the loss of one of the last great dirt/gravel paths in the region. I don’t have a solution, but you can’t blame people for wanting to preserve a resource in a more natural state that they use and love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Fuck I meant Reformatory Branch Trail, not Bruce Freeman. D’oh! Brain fart while typing. I’ll edit.

Paving the Reformatory Branch Trail has been hotly contested and was voted down, something I am in agreement with.

As for the issues you’ve cited: gravel riding in nature is a different beast than riding a paved multi-use trail. When I trip on a root on a hiking trail, I don’t start advocating for cutting down that tree and paving the path so that I don’t trip in the future. Rather, I recognize that keeping nature wild has value. Providing an accessible paved multi-use trail also has value. In a perfect world, we don’t have to argue over scraps while the lion’s share of space is devoted to automobiles. In a perfect world, space is reallocated from automobiles for a paved multi-use trail. For example, I’d love to see Route 2 go on a massive road diet with half of the space reallocated to a paved multi-use trail, but we know that won’t happen.

In the meantime, I’m happy to see that Bedford voted against that plan, but there are aspects of that plan I very much support, which I’ll list below:


Those are actual upgrades that improve access without destroying the natural, gravel/dirt riding that exists.

For urbanites or those without much of an inclination to pursue gravel/dirt riding, I liken it to the unpaved walking trails in Franklin Park or the Arboretum. Paving them may make it less likely that you’ll trip, but the cost of destroying the experience far outweighs the benefit, for those who seek that out. There are paved walkways everywhere. The problem here that we agree on is the woefully inadequate amount of space devoted to paved, car-free, transportation. Where we are clearly not seeing eye to eye is that I strongly disagree with re-appropriating it from on the very few gravel/dirt riding trails left in the area.

I also prefer the trail being unpaved, but if it's going to be unpaved there should be a handful of efforts to widen it, and improve sightlines for inexperienced riders (this is one of the few places I go off-pavement) and make it more usable for transportation purposes. Something more akin to the Farwell St to Bridge St section of the Charles River path.
 
I also prefer the trail being unpaved, but if it's going to be unpaved there should be a handful of efforts to widen it, and improve sightlines for inexperienced riders (this is one of the few places I go off-pavement) and make it more usable for transportation purposes. Something more akin to the Farwell St to Bridge St section of the Charles River path.

Great comment! This would be an ideal compromise, in addition to the upgrades I outlined above.
 
I’m a frequent rider of the Reformatory Branch Trail. Are you?

I strongly disagree with your assessment.

It would be a step in the wrong direction to pave the Reformatory. I say that as a person who bicycles as his primary mode of transportation and has fought tooth and nail for every bike infrastructure project in my neighborhood. Multi-use trails are great. Car-centric infrastructure is not. Nature is great! When you destroy nature in the name of “improving” a multi-use trail, while leaving car-centric infrastructure preserved, you don’t get to claim that those who oppose you are simply just foolish anti-bike NIMBYs.

Listen to those with different opinions than you. They might surprise you.

EDITED: I accidentally misnamed the trail. Whoops!
Hey friend, I think you may have read more into my assessment of the situation than I intended. I don't think I made any claims about foolishness, or anti-bike NIMBYism.

I think there are perfectly reasonable cases to be made for keeping the Reformatory unpaved, so long as it is made fully accessible. Perhaps something more like the Narrow Gauge Trail, but I'd defer to disability advocates. The crossing over Route 62 is not accessible, and while the portion along the wildlife refuge has been improved a lot over the last decade largely through the efforts of a single volunteer, there are still sections that make it impassable for people reliant on mobility devices, families with strollers, or simply people who aren't sure-footed. And of course for it to be extended to the BFRT as part of a regional non-motorized transportation plan, sections would HAVE to be paved, like the areas near future bridges, the now-cancelled tunnel under Rt.62, etc.

I used to commute entirely by bike, from Somerville to Westford. I'd ride down the Reformatory probably a couple times a week when I wanted a break from Rt.225 in Carlisle. So while I don't ride it frequently now, I have ridden it hundreds of times in the past. It was and is lovely, but a reliable commuting path it is not. I went over the handlebars twice when hitting mud-pits on the Reformatory (I ride a 650b rando bike) and riding on dirt is necessarily slower than asphalt every time. I had a 48 mile round-trip commute so speed counted, a lot. Forget about riding the Reformatory in the dark in the winter. A commuter trail can't be seasonal or it doesn't truly take cars off the road.

10 years ago, I was very much in favor of paving the Reformatory. In the ensuing decade I've lived in Concord, and I've come to appreciate the people who prefer to leave it in a more natural state. I serve on committees in Concord that do things like approve trail and conservation projects, or fund them, so I get to listen to lots of different opinions, trust me. I've heard from transportation cyclists and people that want to push their elderly parent or husband with ALS in a wheelchair down the trail, as well as from people that don't think Concord should spend money on trails that will really just benefit people "from other towns," or people that think cutting even a single tree to make the trail more accessible is unacceptable. There are all kinds of opinions. While now on balance I think the merits of paving the trail outweigh the reasons for not paving it, when lobbied a year ago to publicly express my support in favor of the plan to study paving the trail, I declined. I did so because that's an un-winnable fight I don't want to get pulled into, and I'd much rather spend my efforts on more feasible projects, like better pedestrian crossings of Route 2, or the BFRT-Assabet connector.

Edit: I truly appreciate the sentiment that we should preserve what natural space we have, and that we have too many paved spaces and not enough dirt or gravel trails to enjoy. Truth be told, Concord and surrounding towns have a shit-ton of dirt trails, generally lovely paths chock full of flora, fauna and birders staring skyward. These trails tend to largely be destination trails--the kind you drive to, walk or bike around on, and then drive home. Though a buddy and I do a quasi-annual ride we call the Dirty Thirty that is a 30-40 mile bike loop through Concord, Lincoln, Weston, Sudbury, Maynard and Acton that is almost entirely dirt. So, while rich in nature trails, what Concord lacks is non-motorized transportation infrastructure. That's why on balance I think paving the Reformatory is a reasonable idea.
 
Last edited:
Watertown seems to be making progress on their Watertown Community Path connecting the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway, Watertown Square, and the Watertown Linear Park with this new (very short) protected Bike Lane on Taylor Street. Hopefully the section on Arsenal Street is in the works.

TayorSt.jpg
 
Christian MilNeil at StreetsBlogMass reports that the segment under Revere Beach Pkwy (Rt 16) in Everett (connecting Mystic/Costco/Casino paths to Northern Strand)is ready to open
Article with good pictures: Another Gap’s Gone On the Northern Strand Trail In Everett

The path from the Casino northward toward the existing Northern Strand trail now only has a gap of about 200 yards under Rte 16.

the path is complete on the east (rear) of the Costco shopping center and along the west side of the N/Rport CR line, but dead ends at a mound of gravel under the bridge

EDIT: I took a picture from the South looking at the Rte 16 bridge
View attachment 26472
 
As far as bang-for-your buck bikeways go, I think a connector between the Northern Strand Trail and Northgate would be very valuable. Right now, the only legal place to cross the Pines River on bike or foot between Lynn Street and Route 1 are the adjacent Washington Avenue and Squires Road bridges, which are not bike friendly in the least. Biking from Lynn via 107 or Revere Beach Boulevard also requires riding in mixed traffic (or sidewalk riding) on substantial portions of either routes. In fact, other than the Broadway+Revere Street corridor and its small section of the Northern Strand Trail, Revere lacks bike facilities whatsoever.

This short connector would be relatively easy to build - there's already plenty of width on the Pines River bridge. Market Basket and Price Rite, both located at Northgate, are two of the only groceries around.

1691549352731.png
 

Back
Top